「standard」の検索結果

Roblox and Luau game code standards. Writes, reviews, and fixes Script, LocalScript, and ModuleScript code and game systems such as shops, DataStore saves, RemoteEvents, combat, NPCs, and UI. Use when a request involves Luau code or a Roblox Studio project, even when Roblox is never named, when a game bug is reported with no file named, and when the user asks to keep these standards active. Also covers Rojo, Argon, Azul, Script Sync, Studio MCP, and community libraries such as ProfileStore, Knit, Trove, and Fusion. Applies to requests written in any language. Not for plain Lua outside Roblox (Neovim, LOVE, Defold, other engines) or for game design with no Luau to write or review.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Synthesized reference notes from three US Government vehicle-safety sources: NHTSA Cybersecurity Best Practices for the Safety of Modern Vehicles (updated 2022, final), NHTSA Automated Driving Systems 2.0: A Vision for Safety (2017), and a 16-section selection of 49 CFR Part 571 (FMVSS) pinned at eCFR versioner date 2025-01-01. Use for voluntary vehicle cybersecurity practices, the ADS 2.0 twelve priority safety design elements, and FMVSS occupant protection, brakes/stability/lighting, and fuel/EV integrity requirements. Not ISO 26262, not ASPICE, not ISO/SAE 21434, not UNECE R155/R156, not SAE J3016, and not the full Part 571; the FMVSS material is a selection of vehicle-level minimum performance standards, not a process standard.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge base synthesized from the Guide to the Systems Engineering Body of Knowledge (SEBoK) v2.14 by the BKCASE Project. Use for the established systems-engineering canon: SE fundamentals and foundations (systems science, systems thinking, the systems approach, modelling/MBSE), the life cycle (ISO/IEC/IEEE 15288/24748/24774 process, development & agile approaches, model selection/tailoring), technical management, concept definition, architecture/realization (the Vee), V&V, maintenance/sustainment, SE standards, and the application contexts (product, service, enterprise, systems-of-systems, healthcare), plus enabling SE (business/team/individual), related disciplines, quality attributes/specialty engineering, implementation examples, and emerging knowledge. Good for grounding background, vocabulary, and prior-art positions across all eight SEBoK Parts. SCOPE LIMITS: this pack is SEBoK v2.14 only (released 2026-05-18); it synthesizes and signposts rather than reproducing the source — it does not reproduce ISO/IEC/IEEE standard text, is a curated guide (not a complete textbook), and is thin on AI-integration depth (Part 8 is a staging area, not settled practice). LICENCE: content is CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 — non-commercial use only, attribution to the BKCASE Project required, share-alike obligations carry forward.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge base from the DoD M&Q BoK (the Manufacturing and Quality Engineering Body of Knowledge), v3.0 of July 2025, published by OUSD(R&E). Use for the manufacturing-and-quality view of the defense acquisition life cycle: what M&Q engineers do across the Adaptive Acquisition Framework phases (Pre-MDD, Materiel Solution Analysis, Technology Maturation and Risk Reduction, Engineering and Manufacturing Development, Production and Deployment, Operations and Support); the twelve M&Q threads (A–L) built on the '5 Ms'; manufacturing feasibility and producibility; Manufacturing Readiness Levels and assessments; Key/Critical Characteristics and process capability (Cp/Cpk, SPC); the standards stack (AS6500, AS9100/ISO 9001, AS9103, AS9145); technical reviews (ASR/PDR/CDR/PRR) and milestone gates; DCMA surveillance; industrial base and supply chain; and sustainment (LCSP, IPS, ILA, ISR). Scope is DoD acquisition M&Q practice on the Major Capability Acquisition path — it is a best-practice compilation, not policy, and is thin on detailed shop-floor process engineering, contract law, and the full text of the cited industry standards (which it names but does not reproduce).

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge base from the NASA Digital Engineering Acquisition Framework Handbook (NASA-HDBK-1004). Use for acquiring digital/model-based data under contract: the Data Requirements Description (DRD) instrument and the Appendix A DRD suite (TDP, MBx, CDMP, CSA, CR, FCA/PCA, SDT, EMDAL, REF, MRI); the Data Type 1-5 control scale; SOW/RFP/Cost-Volume contract language and data rights (FAR/DFARS, Table 3 license categories); the Requirements Exchange Format (REF/ReqIF, UUID schema) and Master Records Index; model-based data definition (MBSE, CAD/PMI, M&S credibility, BOM, release-state mapping, PLM); digital data collaboration, the four owned architectures, and interoperability standards (MIL-STD-31000, STEP/ISO 10303, ASME Y14); the four MBE interoperability use cases; and MBE Plan development. Scope is the acquisition and contracting side of digital engineering. Does not reproduce ISO/STEP/ASME/MIL-STD/SAE standard text, and the companion NASA-HDBK-1009A carries the deeper digital-engineering practitioner detail this handbook defers to.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the functional safety standards landscape: IEC 61508, ISO 26262, ISO/SAE 21434, UL 4600, SAE J3016, and ASPICE. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate a functional safety standard. All six are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; open paths point at US Government packs, which are not equivalents.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Signpost (not a knowledge pack) for the automotive standards landscape: ISO 26262, ASPICE, SAE J3016, UNECE R155, UNECE R156, and the NHTSA vehicle set. Contains NO source content: designation, edition, owner, status, and an official catalogue URL only. Use when you need to identify or locate an automotive standard. Most are paywalled or carry no redistribution grant and cannot be packaged; the one open path is the nhtsa-vehicle pack.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Knowledge base from the FAA Human Factors Design Standard (HF-STD-001B, 2016) — the FAA's consolidated human-factors / human-systems-integration design criteria for systems it manages, operates, or maintains. Use for requirement-level design rules on: general human-factors design principles; automation and function allocation; designing equipment for maintenance; displays, controls, and visual indicators; alarms, audio, and voice communications; the computer-human interface (information presentation, coding, interaction styles, windows, dialogue); keyboards, input devices, and workstation/workplace ergonomics; system security, personnel safety, environment, anthropometry, and user documentation; plus intended-use and tailoring guidance. It is a quantified, source-attributed synthesis (heavily citing MIL-STD-1472G, MIL-HDBK-759C, DOD-HFDG-ATCCS, NUREG-0700, NASA-STD-3000, ANSI, OSHA, ISO 9241). Complements nasa-hsi as a parallel HSI tradition from the civil-aviation domain. Scope limits: it is design criteria, NOT an HSI lifecycle/process model (use nasa-hsi, nasa-npr-7123, or dau-se-guidebook for process); it does NOT reproduce the third-party standards it cites; it is FAA-acquisition-oriented (ATC, towers, TRACONs, airway facilities), not a general consumer-UX guide; and it is thin on modern touchscreen/mobile, web, and AI-driven interface patterns and on quantitative human-reliability analysis.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Compares one policy against one requirement set (standard, regulation, contract schedule or customer requirement) clause by clause and returns a draft gap review: each requirement element, the policy clause that appears to address it, an apparent match state, and every gap as a question with the clause reference on both sides. Never concludes that the policy complies; the owner decides. Use when the user asks to "gap our policy against the standard", "map this policy to the regulation clause by clause", "check the security policy against the customer's contract schedule", "compare our policy with the new edition" or "where does our policy fall short of the requirements". Do not use for mapping a requirement to the operating controls that implement it, use controls-gap-pack instead; for what a regulatory change means for the organisation, use regulatory-change-impact-note. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Abstracts one contract into a key-terms table with clause references, compares each term against the user's playbook of standard positions, and returns a DRAFT contract review pack: deviations and issues, open questions and a reviewer checklist. Flags governing law and never gives legal advice or enforceability or acceptability calls. Use when the user asks to "review this contract", "abstract the key terms", "summarise this MSA", "pressure-test this SOW against our playbook" or to compare an agreement with their standard positions. Do not use for a first pass on a stand-alone NDA, use nda-triage instead, or for one clause lined up across several documents, use clause-comparison-table instead. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Turns process notes, a walkthrough or interview transcript, a transcript of a meeting recording or a stale existing procedure into a draft standard operating procedure: purpose and trigger, scope, definitions, roles with a RACI table, numbered steps with the check that closes each one, records produced, controls as stated, and open questions for the process owner. Every step traces to the source or reads UNKNOWN. Use when the user asks to "write an SOP from these notes", "turn this walkthrough into a procedure", "document how we do this", "draft the standard operating procedure for", "build a RACI for this process" or "tidy up this old procedure". Do not use for technical runbooks with commands and rollback, use runbook-drafter instead; for meeting minutes and action lists, use transcript-to-actions. Drafts for human review; never approves, authorises or signs off.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Define product photography standards for e-commerce — shot types, composition, lighting, consistency rules, AI-assisted generation, and platform-specific variants. Covers the full product imagery pipeline from concept to published asset. Use when you need to plan product photoshoots, create photography briefs, set image standards for an e-commerce catalog, generate AI product lifestyle shots, or ensure visual consistency across hundreds of products.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for upstream (design) phase reviews.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for midstream (implementation) phase reviews.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Applies standard AI review policy guidelines for downstream (test/QA) phase reviews.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Choose between standard mileage rate and actual expenses for business vehicle deductions. Covers the IRS mileage rate, method lock-in rules, mileage log requirements, commuting rules, luxury auto limits, and heavy vehicle exceptions. Trigger on "mileage deduction", "standard mileage rate", "vehicle expenses", "car deduction", "business miles", "mileage tracking".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Enforces error handling standards: silent error prohibition, custom error class hierarchy (AppError base with category never-fallback / transient / permanent, cause preservation, ValidationError / UnauthorizedError / UpstreamError etc. — canonical definitions in PATTERNS.md), external-boundary normalization (normalizeExternalError), Result pattern (Result.ok/Result.fail), proper try-catch with error type checking, structured error logging with a single Logger contract, fallback prohibition categories (isNeverFallback), and HTTP status code mapping. Use when implementing error handling, reviewing catch blocks, or designing error responses.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes: Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Implement NFT standards (ERC-721, ERC-1155) with proper metadata handling, minting strategies, and marketplace integration. Use when creating NFT contracts, building NFT marketplaces, or implementing digital asset systems.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Universal coding standards, best practices, and patterns for TypeScript, JavaScript, React, and Node.js development.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Use when editing an existing codebase and the goal is minimal, standard, and non-invasive changes — prioritizes simplest solution, standard libraries first, and surgical modification without unsolicited refactors

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Systematic strategic planning framework for philosophy and interdisciplinary academic papers targeting preprint platforms (PhilArchive, arXiv, PhilSci-Archive). Use when users want to: (1) plan a paper on a specific topic, (2) identify research gaps and assess originality, (3) develop optimized paper outlines, (4) prepare for preprint submission, or (5) understand platform requirements and writing standards. Triggered by phrases like 'plan a paper on,' 'help me design a paper about,' 'identify research gaps in,' 'is this idea original,' or when users need structured research planning. The skill guides through three phases: Platform Analysis (identifying target venue and studying sample papers), Theoretical Framework (AI-driven literature search and gap identification), and Outline Optimization (structured design with reviewer-perspective self-assessment). Each phase includes quality evaluation standards and validation checkpoints.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Iteratively improve a Claude Code skill using the skill-reviewer agent until it meets quality standards. Use when improving a skill with multiple quality issues, iterating on a new skill until it meets standards, or automated fix-review cycles instead of manual editing.

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。

Review the changes since a fixed point (commit, branch, tag, or merge-base) along two axes - Standards (does the code follow this repo's documented coding standards?) and Spec (does the code match what the originating issue/spec asked for?). Runs both reviews in parallel sub-agents and reports them side by side. Use when the user wants to review a branch, a PR, work-in-progress changes, or asks to "review since X".

日本語の概要は準備中です。原文の説明を表示しています。